5 ms·
Regarding terminal emulators, I believe that by "fast" people usually mean "low latency" instead of "high throughput". Apparently alacritty has a good performan
by blahgeek 4y ago
Regarding terminal emulators, I believe that by "fast" people usually mean "low latency" instead of "high throughput". Apparently alacritty has a good performance on thoughtput according its benchmark with vtebench, but it does not provide good latency performance according to [0].
[0] https://danluu.com/term-latency/ https://danluu.com/term-latency/
- srcreigh 4y agoI agree, 34ms is unacceptable latency. Let's all use eshell in Emacs instead.
- uluyol 4y agoThat reference is pretty old at this point, especially considering that some of those terminal emulators were very young projects still. I would search for new results before making a statement about performance.
- beefsack 4y agoI'm not sure how current that article is - in that article they state that the alacritty team had created an issue relating to latency[0] which was closed in favour of a different issue[1] which is still open. The newer issue[1] appears to state that latency isn't an issue on Wayland as it already has frame scheduling support, but their proposed fix targets X11, MacOS and Windows. I was quite surprised as I hadn't noticed any latency using alacritty, but I've been on Wayland for some time so that might be the reason. [0] https://github.com/alacritty/alacritty/issues/673 https://github.com/alacritty/alacritty/issues/673 [1] https://github.com/alacritty/alacritty/issues/3972 https://github.com/alacritty/alacritty/issues/3972